See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257253319

The Optimization of Running Technique: What Should Runners Change and How
Should They Accomplish it?

Article · January 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 894

2 authors:

Julitta S Boschman Vincent Gouttebarge

Kennisinstituut van Medisch Specialisten Amsterdam University Medical Centers
35 PUBLICATIONS 365 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 1,442 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mental health among current and retired professional athletes View project

Monitoring the health of transitioning professional footballers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julitta S Boschman on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Boschman, JS, & Gouttebarge, V. The optimisation of running technique: what should runners change and 10
how should they accomplish it? J Sport Human Perf 2013;1(3):10-24
doi: 10.12922/jshp.0014.2013

ORIGINAL RESEARCH OPEN ACCESS

THE OPTIMISATION OF RUNNING TECHNIQUE:

WHAT SHOULD RUNNERS CHANGE AND HOW
SHOULD THEY ACCOMPLISH IT?
Boschman, JS, & Gouttebarge, V

Vintta | Research and Consultancy for Sport Health

. ABSTRACT
Aim: (1) To gather knowledge about interventions (i.e., training programs, running technique
methods) aimed to enhance or optimise the running technique in recreational runners by means of
reviewing the scientific literature and (2) to identify the barriers and facilitators that are related to
learning and applying a natural running technique. Methods: A systematic search of the scientific
literature (Medline and SPORTDiscus) was conducted to identify relevant original studies.
Subsequently, a qualitative research was conducted focusing on a specific and widely available
natural running technique (Chi Running). Information was gathered from recreational runners who
followed a Chi Running course by means of interviews and from Chi Running instructors
participating in a focus group discussion. Results: Based on 7 original studies identified, step
frequency, in combination with other running technique elements (step length and foot strike
pattern), the Pose method, and visual feedback about tibial acceleration were found to have a
positive effect on ground reaction force, contact time foot-ground, compartment pressures,
mechanical power-consumption and self-reported pain. None of the retrieved studies investigated
the sustainability of the learned technique aspects. From the interviews and focus group discussion,
several barriers in learning and applying a new running technique emerged. The barriers were
related to the individual runner (such as a lack of patience), the running technique method itself
(such as being too extensive to learn), and the environment (such as adverse reactions from
coaches). Conclusion: This study presents technique elements which could be beneficial for
runners. Facilitators and barriers in learning and applying a running technique method were
explored. This information is valuable in designing evidence-based interventions aimed at
optimising running technique in recreational runners.

Keywords: military Chi Running; Review; Qualitative research;


INTRODUCTION
The number of recreational runners
has been rising in many countries. Recent
findings show that the total running
population in the United States increased by
18% from 2007 to 2008, while the number of
runners doubled within the decade in the
Netherlands (Running-U.S.A. ; van
Bottenburg 2009).
In contrast with the beneficial effects
for physical health (Williams 2012; Williams
2012) and mental wellbeing (Thompson Coon
et al. 2011), running activities may also lead
to an increased risk of musculoskeletal
injuries (Hespanhol Junior et al. 2011; Lopes
et al. 2012). Known risk factors for running
injuries are gender, high body mass index,
history of previous running injuries, foot
overpronation, muscle functions and weekly
training distance and frequency (Van
Middelkoop et al. 2008; Buist et al. 2010;
Lopes et al. 2012; Moen et al. 2012). Also,
Lieberman et al. (2010) found that modern
running shoes with elevated and cushioned
heels caused the runner to land on the heel
and thereby increased the collision forces at
the ground. Lieberman’s suggestion that
running barefoot might help to avoid injury
has also been criticised, and examples of
injuries associated with running barefoot have
been published (Giuliani et al. 2011; Salzler
et al. 2012). However, Lieberman and the
barefoot running movement primarily
hypothesise that many running injuries derive
from poor running technique (Collier 2011;
Lieberman 2012; Rixe et al. 2012).
Changing running technique and form
has gained more attention over the years as a
potentially effective strategy to reduce
running-related injuries. Particularly, the
'natural running' techniques, such as barefoot
running, Pose, and Chi Running, have been
worldwide a topic of interest among both
runners and sport scientists (Dreyer 2004;
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
11
Fletcher et al. 2008; Collier 2011; Lieberman
2012; Rixe et al. 2012). The essence of these
techniques is that the runner deliberately
changes his or her technique and thereby
strives to reduce the biomechanical load on
tendons and joints as much as possible. For
example, by learning Chi Running, runners
aim at: improving their posture, using
abdominal muscles to stabilize their pelvis,
using gravity instead of muscle power to
create a forward momentum, and running
with a step frequency at around 180
steps/minute (Dreyer 2004).
However, Goss and Gross (2012)
found in their review that there is scarce
scientific evidence to substantiate the claims
of injury prevention through natural running
techniques, such as Chi Running. Results
from a survey conducted among Chi Runners
suggests that a change in the running
technique and a transition to a more natural
running style might be beneficial (Cucuzzella
2008; Cucuzzella 2011), but methodological
weaknesses restrict the validity and
generalisation of these results (Goss and
Gross 2012). To our knowledge, there is no
aggregated scientific evidence on the
feasibility and effectiveness of alterations in
running technique and form among
recreational runners. Moreover, it should be
verified whether learning a natural running
technique leads to sustainable behavioural
changes and mastering the technique in the
long-term. It seems reasonable that runners
might experience barriers in changing their
running technique. The question should
therefore not be restricted to “What is the
effectiveness of adopting an alternate running
style?” but should be complemented with
“Are recreational runners able to learn and
sustainably apply a natural running
technique?”. Exploring both the barriers and
facilitators experienced by runners who
transitioned to natural running is therefore a
valuable step for both researchers and running

coaches who are interested in running
technique.
Consequently, the aim of this study
was twofold, namely (1) to gather knowledge
about interventions (i.e., training programs,
running technique methods) aimed to enhance
or optimise the running technique in
recreational runners by means of reviewing
the scientific literature and (2) to identify the
barriers and facilitators that are related to
learning and applying a natural running
technique.
METHODS
Interventions related to running technique
We conducted a systematic review of
the recent scientific literature to gather
knowledge about interventions, methods, and
programs that focus primarily on the intrinsic
enhancement or optimization of the running
technique of recreational runners.
Search strategy
A systematic search strategy was
performed to search the titles and abstracts of
the electronic databases Medline (biomedical
literature) via PubMed and SPORTDiscus
(sports and sports medicine literature) via
EBCOhost for the past 12 years (from
January 2000 to July 2012). Two key words
and synonyms were used, with a focus on
using MeSH terms in Medline and with some
search terms being truncated with a * symbol
in Medline and a $ symbol in SPORTDiscus.
In both databases, we used the Boolean
commands OR/AND as follows: (technique
OR physical education and training[Mesh]
OR running style OR biomechanic[Mesh] OR
biomechanic*$ OR kinematic*$ OR
mechanic*$ OR natural OR pose OR barefoot
OR chi OR Chi Running) AND (run*$ OR
track and field[MeSH] OR jogg*$).
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
12
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
The inclusion and exclusion criteria
were defined and used to ensure the capture
of all relevant literature. We included original
studies that (1) were published in a scientific
journal from which full-text was available, (2)
were written in English, Dutch or French, and
(3) described an intervention or program that
aimed primarily to enhance or intrinsically
optimise the running behaviour (i.e.,
technique) of runners. We excluded studies
that focused on the extrinsic enhancement or
optimisation of the running technique in
runners by the use of equipment such as
footwear or orthotics or biomechanical
studies that compared experimental
conditions that were related to the running
technique without any attention for
behavioural change.
Study selection
After identifying and deleting all
duplicates, both authors independently
applied the inclusion criteria firstly to the
titles of the studies and secondly to the
abstracts. Studies were included for full text
selection if they met the inclusion criteria or
if the title and/or abstract did not provide
sufficient information to determine whether
the inclusion criteria were met. Then, the full
articles of these studies were obtained, and
the inclusion criteria were applied to the full
text independently by both authors to identify
the relevant articles. Any disagreements
regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the
full articles were resolved by consensus
between both authors by discussing the
inclusion/exclusion of the given study.
Data extraction
The data from the original articles
were extracted with a standardised extraction
form by one author and were independently
checked by the other author. Within the
extraction form, the following topics were
included: (1) study information (author, year,

country and reference number), (2) name of
the running technique intervention or
program, (3) description of the running
technique method or program studied, (4)
characteristics of the study population, (5)
main findings of the study, and (6) post-
intervention strategy for sustainable
behaviour.
Barriers and facilitators to learning and
applying a running technique method
To identify the barriers and facilitators
related to learning and applying a natural
running technique, a qualitative study
designed according to the Consolidated
Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research
(COREQ) was conducted based on a cross-
sectional design using semi-structured
interviews and focus group discussions (Tong
et al. 2007).
Participants
Among all popular natural running
techniques, the Chi Running technique is the
most widespread in the Netherlands and is the
most standardised with regard to its
instructions and instructors (ChiLiving). The
method was founded in 1999 in the United
States by Dreyer (Dreyer 2004). Since then,
thousands of people learned Chi Running by
using support products including books,
DVD's, audio programs and technique-based
distance training programs. Next to this,
Dreyer, along with more than 135 Certified
Instructors, have held clinics across the
world. Consequently, recreational runners
who had taken a course on Chi Running in the
past were recruited for the semi-structured
interviews, regardless of whether they were
suffering from an injury. For the focus group,
nine Dutch instructors (3 males and 6
females) specialised in Chi Running for at
least 3 years were involved in the study.
Procedures
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
13
Prior to the interviews and focus
group, a topic list relying on previous
informal exchange with instructors and on the
experience of the first auteur as Chi-Running
instructor was formed to gather a broad
perspective of the perceptions and opinions of
all participants with regard to the barriers and
facilitators for the application and
implementation of technique intervention.
The topic list based on open questions was
formed in accordance to the aims of our study
(facilitators and barriers) and divided into
categories as suggested by a variant of the
Ottawa model: characteristics of the
(potential) adopters (i.e., runners),
characteristics of the running environment,
and characteristics of the innovation, i.e.,
intervention (Logant and Graham 1998).
After receiving written information
about the aim and procedures of the study, the
participants willing to be enrolled in the study
were asked to contact the researchers to make
an appointment for the interview or focus
group. The interviews were conducted by
phone by either of the two authors, who were
randomly assigned to the participants. The
participants were asked for consent to
audiotape the interviews or focus group and
were then given the opportunity to ask
questions about the study. Both the interviews
and the focus group were estimated to take 30
to 45 minutes. The finding of Guest et al.
(2006) showed that data saturation in
qualitative interviewing on a broad subject
could be achieved in seven to 12 interviews.
Consequently, it was decided to conduct at
least 12 interviews on the assumption that
data saturation would occur if more were
performed.
Analysis
A directed content analysis approach
was used for the analyses of the interviews
and focus group (Hsieh and Shannon 2005).
Audio tapes were attentively listened to so
that, if necessary, the notes made on the topic

list during the interview or focus group could
be completed. The transcribed topic list and
the related notes were divided into important
fragments, and these fragments were coded
openly. The coded fragments were checked
for their relevance, and the synonyms were
combined. This step resulted in a schematic
sorting of the content of the interviews and
the focus group that was discussed by the
authors.
RESULTS
Interventions related to running technique
Search strategy
A total of 5192 potentially relevant
citations were retrieved from our literature
searches of Medline and SPORTDiscus
(August 2012). After checking for duplicates
and applying the inclusion criteria to the
titles, 254 potentially relevant original studies
or reviews were identified. Then, inclusion
criteria were applied to these 254 abstracts,
resulting in only 16 primary studies for the
full text review. From these full texts, 9
original studies were excluded mostly
because these studies did not involve any
intervention, method or training program that
focused on the intrinsic enhancement or
optimization of the running technique.
Finally, 7 original studies were included.
Included studies
The step frequency (and related step
length) as a focus of a running technique
intervention was the topic of interest in 3 of
the 7 included studies (Heiderscheit et al.
2011; Diebal et al. 2012; Hobara et al. 2012).
In one of these studies, it was shown that a
step frequency of approximately 185 steps per
minute significantly decreased the peak
vertical ground reaction force and the energy
generated by the hip, knee and ankle joints
(Heiderscheit et al. 2011). A second study
found that a step frequency of 180 steps per
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
14
minute, in combination with other running
technique elements (step length and foot
strike pattern), significantly decreased the
ground reaction force, the foot-ground contact
time, and the compartment pressures (Diebal
et al. 2012). In addition, a step frequency of
180 steps per minute was also found to
decrease self-reported pain (Diebal et al.
2012). In the third study, Hobara et al. (2012)
found that the lower extremity loading was
minimal at around +15% of preferred step
frequency (Hobara et al. 2012).
The Pose method is the only 'natural
running' technique intervention, i.e., method,
that was retrieved from the scientific
literature. The Pose method was involved in 2
of the 7 included studies (Dallam et al. 2005;
Fletcher et al. 2008). The Pose method relies
on the vertical alignment of the whole body
on the ball of the supporting foot at impact
with the ground, with the runner then moving
from one leg to the other by falling forward
(gravitational torque) and pulling the
supported foot upwards vertically from the
ground using the hamstring muscles. In both
of the included studies, the Pose method was
found to significantly increase the step
frequency and to significantly decrease step
length, vertical oscillation, stance time, and
the distance of body’s centre of mass to the
foot impact (Dallam et al. 2005; Fletcher et
al. 2008). The application of the Pose method
did increase the oxygen consumption of the
runners (Dallam et al. 2005; Fletcher et al.
2008).
In their study, Crowell and Davies
(2011) explored the effect of visual feedback
about tibial acceleration on the different
outcome measures. Visual feedback was
found to significantly decrease the peak
positive tibia acceleration, vertical
instantaneous and average loading rate, and
vertical impact peak (Crowell and Davis
2011). The effect of pre-recorded verbal
instructions in combination with auditory and
visual feedback about vertical displacement,

step length, and mechanical power-
consumption, was also studied by Eriksson et
al. (2011) among well-trained runners. The
authors found relevant adjustments in vertical
displacement, in step length, and in
mechanical power-consumption but these
findings were not statistically significant
(Eriksson et al. 2011).
None of the 7 included studies
presented any information about post-
intervention strategy meant to empower
sustainably the behaviour of runners in the
application of the running technique. The
complete data extraction of the 7 included
studies is presented in Table 1.
Barriers and facilitators to learning and
applying a specific running technique
method
Thirteen recreational runners who
followed a Chi Running technique workshop
or course in the past two years were
interviewed. Among the participants, both
runners who continued to apply the technique
as well as runners who did not were recruited.
Several facilitators and barriers were
identified as related to learning and/or
applying the Chi Running technique (Table
2). Six of the nine invited certified instructors
participated in the focus group discussion.
During the focus group discussion, the
instructors reported on the facilitators and
barriers that were also mentioned by the 13
interviewed recreational runners (Table 2).
Facilitators
The participants were facilitated in
learning Chi Running when they had an
eagerness to learn and intrinsic motivation to
improve their technique. Secondarily,
participants who were experienced with yoga
and mindfulness found this of great help in
learning the Chi Running principles. To apply
the technique, the participants mentioned that
patience and discipline are key elements. The
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
15
participants with running-related injuries
experienced a positive effect with regard to
their running injuries as their complaints
decreased or were even resolved. Some of the
participants also reported that they
experienced more ease during running, and
that they could train longer or run faster with
the same effort. With respect to the Chi
Running method itself, the participants found
the exercises and training tools (such as the
book, DVD and metronome) helpful.
With regard to facilitators concerned
with the individual runner, the instructors
mentioned that those participants who were
practising good posture throughout the day
would benefit from this during their running.
Furthermore, the participants who mastered
the basic principles and experienced success
(for example, no longer getting injured) are
most likely to continue to apply the
technique. However, the instructors
mentioned several barriers, such as how some
participants slow down their learning process
by having negative thoughts about their own
capacity to learn the technique or by trying
too hard to get it right, which is
counterproductive. Other barriers include: not
being able to unlearn habits from years of
running and not having adequate motor skills
or being discouraged by their own technical
shortcomings. Instructors also noted that
some runners do not allow themselves enough
time to go through the necessary learning
phases, from unconscious and incompetent to
conscious and competent.
Barriers
Chi Running was considered to be too
much to learn, and too difficult as well as
taking too much concentration to apply
during running. After these barriers, some
participants were afraid of getting injured
when changing their technique so drastically.
It was also mentioned that the optimistic tone
of the founders of the Chi Running method
does not fit the actual effort it takes to learn it,

which may lead to disappointment. Although
opinions differ widely on whether the
expenses for a course or workshop are high,
some runners believed this to be a barrier.
Furthermore, another obstructing factor is that
there is no structured continuation after a
course or workshop, in general. From the
interviews, it appeared that the social
environment can be a particular barrier in
learning and applying Chi Running.
Examples are negative reactions and the
negative advice of medical experts, such as
physical therapists and physicians.
Furthermore, not all athletic trainers and
coaches are familiar with the technique and
will advise against learning it. Additionally,
at some athletic clubs, another specific
running technique is taught, that is not
compatible with the Chi Running principles.
Instructors acknowledge the main
barrier of Chi Running being an extensive
method that requires someone to completely
change his or her technique. Furthermore,
some runners tend to prefer more ‘easy’
solutions to injuries, such as changing shoes,
wearing orthotic insoles, taking medication,
having a physical therapist to treat injuries or
even not running at all.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to gather
knowledge about interventions (i.e., training
programs or running technique methods) that
are aimed to enhance or optimise the running
technique in recreational runners and to
identify the barriers and facilitators that are
related to learning and applying a natural
running technique. Seven original studies
were found in our systematic literature search
in which technical alterations in the running
technique (namely, the step frequency, step
length, foot strike pattern or a combination of
alterations) were studied among recreational
runners. The main findings of these studies
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
16
showed relevant and beneficial effects, such
as a decrease in the vertical ground reaction
force and vertical excursion of the centre of
mass. However, none of the studies explored
whether the participating runners were able to
sustain the alteration in their technique over
time. Even more, none of the studies
evaluated whether the running technique led
to a reduction in running-related injuries.
From interviews and focus group discussions
among runners and running instructors
involved in natural running (Chi Running),
several barriers in learning and applying a
new running technique emerged. The barriers
were related to the individual runner (such as
a lack of patience, self-discipline, motivation
or concentration), the running technique
method itself (such as being too extensive to
learn and a lack of long-term feedback), and
the environment (such as adverse reactions
from professionals and coaches). The results
of the present study therefore indicate that
technical alterations in the running technique
might have biomechanical benefits, but
several barriers in learning and applying
alterations in the running technique must be
overcome by recreational runners.
Strengths and limitations
For many years, biomechanical
studies have focussed on the effect of apparel
on running gait and subsequent injury risk. In
particular, shoes and orthoses have been
recognised as useful for the prevention of
running-related injuries. To our knowledge,
our study is the first to systematically review
studies in which the runner deliberately and
intrinsically tried to change his or her running
technique.
Furthermore, our study is the first to
provide an in-depth view of the opinions of
runners who were involved in a natural
running technique training program. In
addition, experienced instructors provided
their opinion on how recreational runners
learn and apply a natural running technique.

This approach might be criticised for being
subjective, but in the present study, it
provides relevant and sensible information for
those involved in designing running technique
training programs for both research and
practice.
Implications for research and practice
While ‘natural running' techniques claim to
prevent running injuries, it seems peculiar
that no prospective cohort study evaluating
the effect of running posture and technique
was retrieved from the scientific literature.
Therefore, we recommend a prospective
cohort study to study the causality between
running technique and the occurrence of
injuries. Furthermore, a substantial long-
lasting follow-up period would allow for the
monitoring of the learning process and
sustainable technical changes related to a new
running technique.
With respect to the development of an
intervention in this field of health education
and promotion, one of the structured
processes being applied recently in several
contexts is Intervention Mapping, which was
initiated in 1999 by Bartholomew and was
recently acknowledged for sport injury
research by Verhagen and Van Mechelen
(Bartholomew et al. 2001; Verhagen and Van
Mechelen 2010). Despite the availability of
such structured processes and the rising
awareness that interventions in sport science
and medicine should rely on evidence-based
methods, our study emphasises the lack of
any evidence-based intervention focusing on
the intrinsically sustainable enhancement or
optimisation of the running technique of
recreational runners. The few original studies
retrieved from the scientific literature, as well
as the results of our qualitative study among
recreational runners and instructors,
emphasise that long-term strategies to achieve
sustainable alterations in running technique
are lacking. Considering the diffusion of
innovation theory (Rogers 2003), it seems
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
17
peculiar that worldwide popular natural
running techniques seem to take into account
to some extent the diffusion stage but not the
adoption stage. Individual strategies for the
long-term application of the natural running
technique are lacking.
Whether learning and applying a
natural running technique might be effective
depends largely upon whether the
intervention (i.e., running technique program)
itself and the delivery of the intervention were
optimal. Conducting a pilot implementation
and evaluation of the process of this
implementation might therefore be a fruitful
approach in our opinion. Barriers that were
mentioned by the participants in the present
study should be tackled, and facilitators
should be exploited.
REFERENCES
Bartholome LK, Parcel GS, Kok GJ, Gottlieb
NH. Intervention Mapping: designing theory
and evidence-based health promotion
programs. Mountain View (California):
Mayfield Publishing Company; 2001.
Buist I, Bredeweg SW, Lemmink KA, van
Mechelen W, Diercks RL. Predictors of
running-related injuries in novice runners
enrolled in a systematic training program: a
prospective cohort study. American Journal
of Sports Medicine. 2010;38(2):273-80.
ChiLiving. ChiRunning - Learn it. [Cited
2012 December 16]. Available from
http://www.chiliving.com/learn-it/.
Collier R. The rise of barefoot running.
CMAJ. 2011;183(1):E37-8.
Crowell HP, Davis IS. Gait retraining to
reduce lower extremity loading in runners.
Clinical Biomechanics (Bristol, Avon).
2011;26(1):78-83.

Cucuzzella M. ChiRunning Survey. West
Virginia University; 2008.
Cucuzzella M. ChiRunning Survey. West
Virginia University; 2011.
Dallam GM, Wilber RL, Jadelis K, Fletcher
G, Romanov N. Effect of a global alteration
of running technique on kinematics and
economy. Journal of Sports Sciences.
2005;23(7):757-64.
Diebal AR, Gregory R, Alitz C, Gerber JP.
Forefoot running improves pain and disability
associated with chronic exertional
compartment syndrome. American Joural of
Sports Medicine. 2012;40(5):1060-7.
Dreyer D. ChiRunning - A revolutionary
approach to effortless, injury-free running.
New York: Simon & Schuster; 2004.
Eriksson M, Halvorsen KA, Gullstrand L.
Immediate effect of visual and auditory
feedback to control the running mechanics of
well-trained athletes. Journal of Sports
Sciences. 2011;29(3):253-62.
Fletcher G, Romanov N, Bartlett R. Pose®
Method Technique Improves Running
Performance Without Economy Changes.
International Journal of Sports Science and
Coaching. 2008;3(3):365-80.
Giuliani, J, Masini B, Alitz C, Owens BD.
Barefoot-simulating footwear associated with
metatarsal stress injury in 2 runners.
Orthopedics. 201134(7):e320-3.
Goss DL, MT Gross MT. A Review of
Mechanics and Injury Trends Among Various
Running Styles. US Army Medical
Department Journal. 2012;Jul-Sep:62-71.
Guest, G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How Many
Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
18
Data Saturation and Variability. Field
Methods. 2006;18:59-82.
Heiderscheit, BC, Chumanov ES, Michalski
MP, Wille CM, Ryan MB. Effects of step rate
manipulation on joint mechanics during
running. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise. 2011;43(2):296-302.
Hespanhol Junior LC, Carvalho ACA, Costa
LOP, Lopes AD. The prevalence of
musculoskeletal injuries in runners: a
systematic review. British Journal of Sports
Medicine. 2011;45(4):351-2.
Hobara H, Sato T, Sakaguchi M, Nakazawa
K. Step frequency and lower extremity
loading during running. International Journal
of Sports Medicine. 2012;33(4):310-3.
Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to
qualitative content analysis. Quality of Health
Research. 2005;15(9):1277-88.
Lieberman DE. What we can learn about
running from barefoot running: an
evolutionary medical perspective. Exercise
and Sport Sciences Reviews. 2012;40(2):63-
72.
Lieberman DE, Venkadesan M, Werbel WA,
Daoud AI, D'Andrea S, Davis IS, et al. Foot
strike patterns and collision forces in
habitually barefoot versus shod runners.
Nature. 2010;463(7280):531-5.
Logant J, Graham IG. Towards a
comprehensive interdisciplinary model of
health care research use. Science
Communication. 1998;20:227-49.
Lopes AD, Hespanhol Junior LC, Yeung
SS,Costa LO. What are the main running-
related musculoskeletal injuries? A
Systematic Review. Sports Medicine.
2012;42(10):891-905.
 19

Moen MH, Bongers T, Bakker EW,
Zimmermann WO, Weir A, Tol JL, et al. Risk
factors and prognostic indicators for medial
tibial stress syndrome. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine & Science in Sports.
2012;22(1):34-9.
Van Middelkoop M, Kolkman J, Van Ochten
J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Koes BW. Risk
factors for lower extremity injuries among
male marathon runners. Scandinavian Journal
of Medicine & Science in Sports.
2008;18(6):691-7.

Rixe JA, Gallo RA,Silvis ML. The barefoot
debate: can minimalist shoes reduce running-
related injuries? Current Sports Medicine
Reports. 2012;11(3):160-5.
Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. New
York: The Free Press; 2003.
Running-U.S.A. Statistics. [Cited 2012
December 15] Available from
http://www.runningusa.org/statistics.
Salzler MJ, Bluman EM, Noonan S, Chiodo
CP, de Asla RJ. Injuries observed in
minimalist runners. Foot & Ankle
International. 2012;33(4):262-6.
Verhagen E, Van Mechelen W. Sports injury
research. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
2010
Williams PT. Attenuating effect of vigorous
physical activity on the risk for inherited
obesity: a study of 47,691 runners. PLoS One.
2012;7(2):e31436.
Williams PT. Non-exchangeability of running
vs. other exercise in their association with
adiposity, and its implications for public
health recommendations. PLoS One.
2012;7(7):e36360.

Thompson Coon J, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear

R, Barton J, Depledge MH. Does
participating in physical activity in outdoor
natural environments have a greater effect on
physical and mental wellbeing than physical
activity indoors? A systematic review.
Environmental Science & Technology.
2011;45(5):1761-72.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated

criteria for reporting qualitative research
(COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews
and focus groups. International Journal for
Quality of Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.

van Bottenburg M. Running alone together?

The social dynamics and meanings of ‘light’
running communities. International Sociology
of Sport Association. Sport: passion, practice
& profit. ’s-Hertogenbosch: Mulier Instituut;
2009.

J Sport Hum Perf

ISSN: 2326-6333
 20

Table 1: Data extraction from included studies on running technique in recreational runners.
Author Running technique Intervention or program Study population Main findings
intervention or description
program
Crowell and Retraining Training (8 times over 2 weeks, N = 10 recreational - Decrease (*) in peak positive
Davis program from 15 to 30 min over 2 weeks) runners acceleration of the tibia
(2011) on treadmill with visual feedback G = 4 males, 6 - Decrease (*) in vertical
U.S.A. displayed on a monitor about the females instantaneous loading rate
tibial acceleration. A = 26.0 (SD = 7.0) - Decrease (*) in vertical average
loading rate
- Decrease (*) in vertical impact
peak

Dallam et al. Pose method Theoretical and practical training N = 16 experienced - Decrease (*) in step length
(2005) (1 time per week for 60 min sub-elite triathletes - Decrease (*) in vertical oscillation
U.S.A. during 12 weeks) involving basic G = 16 males - Increase (*) in oxygen cost
drills and sub-maximal short A = 35.6 (SD = 5.1)
distance runs.

Diebal et al. Step frequency Instruction (using a metronome
(2012) Step length for 3 steps per s), training (3
U.S.A. Foot strike pattern times per week for nearly 45 min
during 6 weeks) and video
feedback aiming to eliminate the
initial hindfoot strike, and
limiting pushing the foot off the
ground by using the hamstrings
muscle group.
N = 10 patients - Increase (*) in step rate
having suffered from - Decrease (**) in step length
chronic exertional - Decrease (*) in ground reaction
compartment force
syndrome - Decrease (*) in contact time
G = 8 males, 2 - Decrease (**) in intracompartment
females pressures
A = 20.2 (SD = 1.5) - Decrease (**) in self-reported pain
- Increase (**) in lower leg
condition

Eriksson et Vertical Visual (TV-monitor) and auditory N = 18 well-trained - Relevant adjustment in vertical
al. displacement (wireless headset) feedback about runners displacement
(2011) Step length vertical displacement, step length, G = 11 males, 7 - Relevant adjustment in step length
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
 21

Sweden Mechanical power- and mechanical power- females - Relevant adjustment in mechanical
consumption consumption, and pre-recorded A = 28.4 (SD = 6.4) power-consumption
verbal instructions on how to (not tested for statistical
correct the technique (run significance)
higher/lower, too much/too little
power, shorter/longer steps).

Fletcher et Pose method Theoretical and practical training
al. (2008), (1 time per day for 60 min during
Canada 1 week) involving basic drills and
sub-maximal short distance runs,
using video feedback.
N = 8 recreational - Decrease (**) in stance time
runners and - Decrease (*) in distance of body’s
triathletes free from centre of mass to foot impact
musculoskeletal - Decrease (**) in average knee
injuries flexion angular velocity for stance
G = 8 males from impact to maximum knee
A = 21.1 (SD = 1.7) flexion
- Increase (*) in average knee
flexion angular velocity from
terminal stance to maximum knee
flexion during swing
- Increase (**) in step frequency
- Decrease (NS) in vertical
oscillation
- Increase (NS) in oxygen
consumption

Heiderscheit Step frequency Running for 15 s with visual N = 45 healthy - Mean preferred step length: 100.8
et al. (2011), feedback and digital audio volunteers cm
U.S.A. metronome at different step G = not reported - Mean preferred step frequency:
frequencies: preferred, below (- A = 32.7 (SD = 172.6 per min
5%), below (-10%) preferred, 15.5) - Minimal step length at +10% of
above (+5%) preferred, and above preferred step frequency
(+10%) preferred. - Minimal peak vertical ground
reaction force at +10% of preferred
step frequency
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
 22

- Minimal vertical excursion of

center of mass at +10% of preferred
step frequency
- Decrease (**) in hip energy
absorbed at +10% of preferred step
frequency
- Decrease (NS) in hip energy
generated at +10% of preferred step
frequency
- Decrease (**) in knee energy
absorbed at +10% of preferred step
frequency
- Decrease (**) in knee energy
generated at +10% of preferred step
frequency
- Increase (NS) in ankle energy
absorbed at +10% of preferred step
frequency
- Decrease (NS) in ankle energy
generated at +10% of preferred step
frequency

Hobara et Step frequency Training (as long as needed, N= 10 runners - Mean preferred step frequency:
al., 2012, ranging from 3 to 4 min) with without 2.73 Hz
Japan digital audio metronome at neuromuscular - Minimal lower extremity loading
different step frequencies: disorders or at around +15% of preferred step
preferred, below (-15%), below (- functional frequency
30%) preferred, above (+15%) limitations
preferred, and above (+30%) G = 10 males
preferred. A = 28.8 (SD = 3.0)

N, number; G, gender; A, mean age in years; SD, standard deviation; s, second; min, minute; Hz, hertz; *p<.05; **, p<.01; NS, not
significant; %, percentage
J Sport Hum Perf
ISSN: 2326-6333
 23

Table 2: Main facilitators and barriers in learning and applying a running technique (Chi Running) as perceived by course participants
(P) and instructors (I) or both participants and instructors (all, except otherwise indicated).
Characteristics Facilitators Barriers
Runners Learning Learning:
 Eagerness and intrinsic motivation to learn  High degree of difficulty and effort to learn
natural running and improve technique  Obstructive thoughts, such as ‘I cannot learn this’ (I)
 Frequent practice  Difficulties with unlearning habits from years of running
 Experience with yoga or mindfulness  Difficulties with relaxing (which is needed in learning
 Video-taping yourself and comparing to what ChiRunning)
extent your technique meets the criteria for  Not having good motor skills and body sensing abilities (I)
ChiRunning  Forgetting of exercises, which might be useful
 Beginning runner without ingrained running  Afraid of getting injured as a result of changing running
technique technique
 Reading the ChiRunning book  Not taking enough time to go through each stage of learning
 Awareness of posture all day long (I) proces (I)
 Trying too hard, which is counterproductive and causes
tension and sometimes injuries/complaints (I)
 Too many ‘shortcomings’ in technique, which is
discouraging (I)
Continuing to apply: Continuing to apply:
 Patience and discipline in practicing  Takes too much concentration during running
 Interest in mindfulness  Tired of practising after a few months (P)
 Frequent and prolonged (4 to 5 months)  Reluctant to constrict speed and/or distance and focus on
practising of exercises (P) technique first (I)
 Awareness of (beginning) injuries (I)
 Being satisfied with the progress you make,
even if that is small
Innovation i.e,. Learning and applying: Learning:
program  Exercises before running (body looseners) and  ChiRunning has a reputation of being vague
during running  The ChiRunning technique is too extensive to be learned in
 Contact with instructor by email/social media a full day or a course of approx. 6-8 hours (I)

J Sport Hum Perf

ISSN: 2326-6333
 24

Characteristics Facilitators Barriers

 Video feedback by instructor  Difficulties with completely changing running technique (I)
 Using the metronome to increase step  Courses/workshop/individual coaching is expensive
frequency  Courses/workshop/individual coaching is needed to really
 A training program for 5K, including a weekly learn it, difficult to learn it by yourself (P)
training with an instructor
Continuing to apply:
 No long-term strategy to continue to work on technique
 The optimistic tone of the Chi Running-founders is not
fitting the actual effort it takes for a runner to change
his/her technique, which leads to disappointment (P)
 Apparent contrast between the mindful approach and the
often expressed ambitions, such as running a marathon or
ultra marathon (P)
Social Continuing to apply: Learning:
environment  Having a training buddy who is also working  Negative reactions of medical experts (for example pysical
on his/her technique and can give you therapists, who are “convinced that it is best to land on your
feedback heel”.
 Discussing your technique with other Chi  Athletic trainers without knowledge about the technique
Runners and advise against learning and applying the technique
 Other possibilities to get rid of a running injury (I)
Continuing to apply:
 Adherence to another running technique method (athletics
club)
 Some participants seek advice from everyone and follow up
on every advise they are being given, even when it is a poor
advice or counterproductive when a runner tries to apply
Chi Running (I)
P, perceived only by participants; I, perceived only by instructor

J Sport Hum Perf

ISSN: 2326-6333

View publication stats